Which paper is going to send this file back?
For your own business, or as a service you charge other businesses like yours for.
Nobody runs this lab yet. Take it, give it your hours and your prices, and it is yours.
| Document | Status | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Tax notice 2025 | Missing | Refused every time |
| Quote with RGE number | Number absent | Number, not the logo |
| Proof of ownership | Present | Deed accepted |
| Energy audit | Present | Under two years, valid |
Two blockers. Both are the reasons files come back three weeks later.
Two blockers on the Ferrand file
Both are the reasons files come back three weeks later, and both are fixable this week.
1. The 2025 tax notice
Missing. The client has it, they think they sent it, they sent the 2024 one. Ask for the page carrying the reference number, not the whole document, and say which year in the message. A file refused for a wrong year is refused in full.
2. The RGE number on the quote
The quote carries the logo and not the number. The logo is not the proof. Reissue the quote with the certification number and its validity date in the header, then have the client sign the new one. The signed old quote does not count.
What to check while you are in there
| PiecePiece | StateState | WatchWatch |
|---|---|---|
| Energy audit | Present | Valid, done in March |
| Proof of ownership | Present | Deed, accepted |
| Bank details | Present | Must be the client's, not yours |
What it costs in time
Twenty minutes to reissue the quote, one message for the notice. Against three weeks and a refiling.
Hello, Your file is ready except for one thing, and I would rather ask now than have it come back in three weeks. I need the 2025 tax notice, the one received last autumn. The document you sent is the 2024 one. A photo of the first page is enough, the one with the reference number at the top. On my side I am reissuing the quote today: it has to carry my certification number written out, not just the logo. I will send it back for signature this afternoon, same price and same work, only the header changes. With both, the file goes out Friday. Regards, Marc
The cost of a badly filled grant file is not the refusal, it is the delay: three weeks to learn that one document was missing, a customer losing patience, a job sliding into the next month. A certified firm builds the same files all year, against conditions that move mid course and papers that have to agree with each other. Grant application software asks you to work inside its own forms. This lab would run the check before you send, from the conditions you keep up to date and from the refusals you already met.
Put there once, read by every magik.
Put there once by you, read by every magik, corrected when reality moves. Full on day one, unlike the collections below.
Worth more in month six than in week one.
The collections belong to the lab, not to any single magik. Every magik reads them and every run adds to them, which is why this lab is worth more in month six than in week one.
| Reason | Seen | What was missing |
|---|---|---|
| Quote not compliant | often | certification line missing |
| Dates do not line up | often | quote signed after the work |
| Proof of identity | sometimes | document unreadable |
Invented for this page. Your Reasons for refusal collection starts empty and fills as you work.
It wears your name, not ours.
The same lab, under your name, your colours and your logo. Your customers never see ours.
AskMOJOOn the Pro plan, and not needed to take a lab. A fully bespoke theme exists as an upgrade, hand built rather than self-serve.
Web searchAnd whatever you already use: any tool available through an API or an MCP server, connected with your own account.
A tool built for exactly your job, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This is for the jobs nothing covers, or the ones spread across three tools today.
It holds no scale of its own, on purpose. The current conditions are a resource you put in and correct, and the lab checks a file against that version. A ceiling written into a tool is wrong the day after the next decree, and nobody notices until a file comes back.
No. Eligibility is decided by the body handling the file, and a lab that answered yes would be making a promise it cannot keep. What it does is compare the file with the conditions you wrote down and flag what is missing or inconsistent, which is where files actually fail.
That list belongs to the scheme, changes regularly, and lives in the conditions you keep up to date. The lab reads that list rather than holding one, and on a job that is not in it, the useful answer is that this file will not pass rather than a guess wrapped in a maybe.
Which is why they are a resource you correct, not a rule frozen inside a tool. The day a ceiling or a required document changes, you update the line, and the files checked from then on are checked against the new version.
That the documents are there, and that they agree with each other and with the conditions you put in: the quote, the certification papers, the details of the property. It flags what is missing and what does not match. It does not stand in for the case officer and it does not promise approval.
A file is almost always turned down for a reason that will come back. Kept in a collection, those reasons become the checklist for the next file, built from your own files rather than from a generic information sheet.
It drafts the parts that repeat, and you read them. A file assembled by a machine and sent unread is the fastest way to send a mistake with your certification number on it. The check before sending is the value here; the drafting is the easy half.
A tool built for exactly certified renovation firms, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This lab is for the jobs no tool covers, or the ones spread across three tools today, and it runs under your name.
Every audience is still open.
Nobody has taken a square on this idea yet. You declare your audience when you take the lab (“roofers in Brittany”, “plumbers around Paris”), and two people can start from the same idea on two different audiences without getting in each other’s way.
And it wears your name, not ours.
The bundle describes a lab that does not exist yet : the jobs it would do, and an example of each output.
Open Knowledge Format : plain markdown, re-importable into any agent. No account, no lock-in.
Your site notes become the report: what was decided, who owes what, by when. Written before the next meeting.
GmailThe quotes that went silent get a follow-up that sounds like you wrote it. Because you read it before it goes.
Gmail
Google SheetsThe customer describes the noise. They get a plain explanation, a price range and whether it can wait. Before they call three other garages.
The estimate is drafted and the job is logged, without you writing it twice.
WhatsAppGmailWhatsApphome screen appStill comparing tools? Best AI for site reports.